|
[ NATIONAL FOCUS]
Fire-safe cigarettes: Are they the next burning issue?
On June 28, 2004, New York became the first state to require that all cigarettes manufactured or sold meet certain “fire-safe” standards. On May 1 of this year, Vermont became the second state to do so. In California, the third state to pass a similar bill, the regulation will be effective Jan. 1, 2007. In October 2005, Canada became the first country to mandate fire-safe cigarettes nationwide.
The fuse has been lit. On March 16, the newly formed Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes, headed by National Fire Protection Association President and CEO James M. Shannon held a press conference in Washington, D.C. calling for manufacturers to immediately begin manufacturing and selling only cigarettes that meet the established standards. The coalition—which is made up primarily of fire safety organizations and health organizations concerned with fire safety—is meanwhile working to see that the standards become law in every state in the U.S.
So far, bills are in various stages of legislation in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. In Illinois, the bill was passed overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate. It received the governor's signature on May 19 and goes into effect Jan. 1, 2008. Bills also were proposed in Alabama, Alaska, Georgia and Hawaii, but the sessions ended without final action on them.
Of course, the cigarettes aren’t completely fire-safe. The more correct term is “reduced ignition propensity,” but that’s quite a mouthful and not nearly as understandable or catchy. What it basically means is that if the cigarette is put down and left unattended, it will only burn part way and then will extinguish itself. The way this happens is by manufacturing the cigarette with a paper that has several bands of less porous paper that act as “speed bumps.” Other methods are possible and more may be available in the future, but for now the “speed-bump” technology is the one in use.
The standards urged by the Coalition and used in New York—and in all other legislation to date—were actually developed under the auspices of a federal committee in the 1990s in preparation for federal legislation. First introduced by the late Sen. Joseph Moakley of Massachusetts, the Fire Safe Cigarette Act is still stalled in Senate committee, though it is re-introduced at the beginning of each session by Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin. Standards require that no more than 25 percent of 40 cigarettes tested burn their full length when placed on 10 layers of standard filter paper.
Critics, including some manufacturers, say this is only applicable in a laboratory situation and proves nothing in real life. Not so, says Shannon. ”Before the affordable, repeatable test procedure was developed and standardized, there were numerous tests conducted on real-life furnishings,” he says. And while such cigarettes might burn upholstery if left on it, proponents say they would burn out before the upholstery would reach the temperature necessary to combust.
On Feb. 27, Shannon wrote a letter to the chairmen/CEOs of the three major manufacturers—R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris USA and Lorillard—urging them to lead the way to a nationwide move for fire-safe cigarettes by voluntarily making all of their cigarettes meet RIP standards by Jan. 1, 2007, when the California requirement becomes effective. Although the responses from the manufacturers varied in detail, all were not willing to do so.
Reasons given include:
- an insufficient supply of the necessary paper to manufacture all products on a national basis;
- inadequate proof that across-the-board compliance is and would be enforced;
- the need for federal legislation, not a state-by-state requirement, to avoid a “patchwork” of conflicting state regulations;
- the need for furniture to also meet flammability standards, and
- that there is no such thing as a “fire-safe” cigarette and calling cigarettes “fire-safe” might cause consumers to treat them more carelessly and therefore start more fires.
A study released by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2005 that compared five brands of RIP cigarettes sold in New York to their counterparts sold in Massachusetts reported that the average percentage of full-length burns was 10 percent for New York brands compared to 99.8 percent for the non-RIP brands in Massachusetts. The study also reported that, based on cigarette tax data, New York experienced no decline in cigarette sales following the switch to RIP.
How are fire-safe cigarettes faring in real life?
Retailer Darren Schwartz, who owns some 22 Smoker’s Choice Stores in upstate New York, says he hasn’t seen any negative impact on business and reactions of smokers to the RIP cigarettes vary. “I think there’s just a general displeasure from the consumer base,” he says, but he thinks the state or someone should have done a better job of educating consumers about how the fire-safe cigarettes work. A lot of consumers think a chemical is used, he says, and some say the cigarette tastes odd when it’s relit.
“Some don’t notice the difference,” Schwartz says. Those are likely to be smokers who simply light a cigarette and smoke it. Those who tend to put their cigarette down in an ashtray will find it’s gone out when they pick it up a bit later, which they find annoying.
Schwartz says one good thing about the fire-safe requirement is that it has cut down on brand proliferation. “Some manufacturers didn’t want to make cigarettes specifically for the state,” he says. Some smaller manufacturers removed their brands and even some of the major manufacturers eliminated some styles or brands. “They did it to things that don’t sell, so it’s nice,” he says.
To read more about the issue, Shannon’s letter to manufacturers and their responses, visit www.firesafecigarettes.org. To read R.J. Reynolds’ position on fire-safe cigarettes, visit www.rjrt.com/legal/stateFireSafety.aspx.TR |
